i hate those people who use being anti-war as an excuse to claim it acceptable to not show respect for injured soldiers.

look at the end of the video. that bloke has lost the entire left side of his brain. he is a young man who will live as a vegetable for the rest of his life. his family will have to look after him every second of it and their pain will be as much, if not more than he is himself experiencing.

i am against war except in necessaity (like ww2. to prevent mass genocide and defend ourselves) and so i do not suppurt the iraq and afghan conflicts. but, just because somebody (soldiers) have acted contrary to your (pacifists) opinions that is not an excuse to disrespect those of poor fortune; the injured and the dead. if a soicalist died i'd still feel bad and offer my respect as i'd hope him to do for me. just like when the german and english troops put down their guns and played a game of footy together on christmas day in no mans land during ww1....sometimes it is only decent to put aside your differences and show compassion for your fellow man. doing this for the soldiers is not a neglect of compassion for the dead civlians....if each dead civilian were paraded as dead bodies in front of our tv screens i'd like to think people would join me in showing respect for their cause.....but there realistically will never be time in the day to do this for all the world's tragedies....this is why grief is specialised....you mourn for your own nan but not a stranger's.....you mourn for your own soldiers but not others. it is practical, traditional and only good and proper. if you can't put your pacifist tendencies aside just for one moment and spare a bit of your time for a man who had his life removed from him just because his government made an idiotic choice to invade afghanistan is the single biggest act of hypocrisy, bar going to war themselves, i can ever imagine a pacifist committing

(Original post by 35mm_)
The British soldiers who fight in Iraq (and indeed soldiers who fight in any conflict) are merely doing their job, in some of the most extreme conditions, with professionalism. It's a vile job, but somebody has to do it, especially in the modern day.

is the nuremberg defence really a satisfactory defence, though? if they have sufficient information to assess a particular act as likely being immoral, and they are ordered to do that act as part of their job, couldn't still committing the immoral act be fairly called immoral?

(Original post by PAPAdawg)
i hate those people who use being anti-war as an excuse to claim it acceptable to not show respect for injured soldiers.

look at the end of the video. that bloke has lost the entire left side of his brain. he is a young man who will live as a vegetable for the rest of his life. his family will have to look after him every second of it and their pain will be as much, if not more than he is himself experiencing.

i am against war except in necessaity (like ww2. to prevent mass genocide and defend ourselves) and so i do not suppurt the iraq and afghan conflicts. but, just because somebody (soldiers) have acted contrary to your (pacifists) opinions that is not an excuse to disrespect those of poor fortune; the injured and the dead. if a soicalist died i'd still feel bad and offer my respect as i'd hope him to do for me. just like when the german and english troops put down their guns and played a game of footy together on christmas day in no mans land during ww1....sometimes it is only decent to put aside your differences and show compassion for your fellow man. doing this for the soldiers is not a neglect of compassion for the dead civlians....if each dead civilian were paraded as dead bodies in front of our tv screens i'd like to think people would join me in showing respect for their cause.....but there realistically will never be time in the day to do this for all the world's tragedies....this is why grief is specialised....you mourn for your own nan but not a stranger's.....you mourn for your own soldiers but not others. it is practical, traditional and only good and proper. if you can't put your pacifist tendencies aside just for one moment and spare a bit of your time for a man who had his life removed from him just because his government made an idiotic choice to invade afghanistan is the single biggest act of hypocrisy, bar going to war themselves, i can ever imagine a pacifist committing

Mate, I'm not going to get back into this thread, but I'd like say thanks, it's really heart-warming to read a post like that. I'll +rep you, not that that means anything though. If I were to meet you I'd shake your hand, I wish there were more like you. Excellent, mature, attitude - those serving, and especially those injured/ killed, would do the same.

(Original post by Kolya)
is the nuremberg defence really a satisfactory defence, though? if they have sufficient information to assess a particular act as likely being immoral, and they are ordered to do that act as part of their job, couldn't still committing the immoral act be fairly called immoral?

Unfortunately not, orders are not questionable (not least those in such concidions - with bullets pinging around you); orders must be carried out - complaints of said orders may be raised afterwards.

(Original post by djmarkmclachlan)
Unfortunately not, orders are not questionable (not least those in such concidions - with bullets pinging around you); orders must be carried out - complaints of said orders may be raised afterwards.

But you are happy to hold them responsible for the act of going to fight a war, if you consider the whole war to be immoral and detrimental to humanity?

(Original post by Kolya)
But you are happy to hold them responsible for the act of going to fight a war, if you consider the whole war to be immoral and detrimental to humanity?

The government decide where we go, not those serving, in command. Orders are given by commanding officers (etc. it's hierarcheal); and they are not to be questioned. So no, they're not responsible.

Have a look-see on Google for an RAF doctor who refused to carry out his service requirements about 2 or 3 years ago.

I'm really not getting into this, I serve for my own reasons, those of you anti-war can get on with it.

I just wonder how you expect this world to revolve without wars; it is (to me) an incredibly naive perspective, as no matter how much we promote pasifism, there will always be someone willing to do something against our societies views (which you're willing to live by, but not willing to enforce - public stoning, for example), who will promote/ enact terror/hostilities.

(Original post by djmarkmclachlan)
The government decide where we go, not those serving, in command. Orders are given by commanding officers (etc. it's hierarcheal); and they are not to be questioned. So no, they're not responsible.

Have a look-see on Google for an RAF doctor who refused to carry out his service requirements about 2 or 3 years ago.

I'm really not getting into this, I serve for my own reasons, those of you anti-war can get on with it.

I just wonder how you expect this world to revolve without wars; it is (to me) an incredibly naive perspective, as no matter how much we promote pasifism, there will always be someone willing to do something against our societies views (which you're willing to live by, but not willing to enforce - public stoning, for example), who will promote/ enact terror/hostilities.

i'm not anti-war. my argument is that one does not lose moral responsibility for one's actions, even if those actions are provoked by orders from above. the RAF doctor you are referring to, Malcolm Kendall-Smith, was right to refuse to carry about service requirements if he considered those service requirements to be immoral and detrimental to humanity. to act without consideration for the moral consequences of one's actions is to act inhumanely...it is to ignore an important part of the social responsibilities to mankind that each of us has, and which are a fundamental pillar of our humanity. that's not an anti-war position; it is a position that rightly defends the importance of moral responsibility.

so i hold soldiers morally responsible for their actions, even if they were acting on orders, and I think by doing so i am showing the soldiers more respect than those who think soldiers should not be held morally responsible for their actions; i am treating soldiers like decent human beings, with all the responsibilities that come with that decent and trustworthy state of being.

(Original post by Kolya)
i'm not anti-war. my argument is that one does not lose moral responsibility for one's actions, even if those actions are provoked by orders from above. the RAF doctor you are referring to, Malcolm Kendall-Smith, was right to refuse to carry about service requirements if he considered those service requirements to be immoral and detrimental to humanity. to act without consideration for the moral consequences of one's actions is to act inhumanely...it is to ignore an important part of the social responsibilities to mankind that each of us has, and which are a fundamental pillar of our humanity. that's not an anti-war position; it is a position that rightly defends the importance of moral responsibility.

so i hold soldiers morally responsible for their actions, even if they were acting on orders, and I think by doing so i am showing the soldiers more respect than those who think soldiers should not be held morally responsible for their actions; i am treating soldiers like decent human beings, with all the responsibilities that come with that decent and trustworthy state of being.

I asked eariler in the thread whether one could ever get rid of the responcibilty they hold by their actions, and gave the analogy of someone choosing to get drunk, and then whilst drunk raping a woman.
I think your post answers it well, and goes with what I think, that we never lose responcibility for our actions.

(Original post by Kolya)
i'm not anti-war. my argument is that one does not lose moral responsibility for one's actions, even if those actions are provoked by orders from above. the RAF doctor you are referring to, Malcolm Kendall-Smith, was rightto refuse to carry about service requirements if he considered those service requirements to be immoral and detrimental to humanity. to act without consideration for the moral consequences of one's actions is to act inhumanely...it is to ignore an important part of the social responsibilities to mankind that each of us has, and which are a fundamental pillar of our humanity. that's not an anti-war position; it is a position that rightly defends the importance of moral responsibility.

so i hold soldiers morally responsible for their actions, even if they were acting on orders, and I think by doing so i am showing the soldiers more respect than those who think soldiers should not be held morally responsible for their actions; i am treating soldiers like decent human beings, with all the responsibilities that come with that decent and trustworthy state of being.

No, he was an idiot for signing up for service if he wasn't willing to fulfill his commitment. Unfortunately, we're in that "legal quagmire" of having to commit to our requirements by NATO, whose mission statement is for it's members to act against aggressors of any of it's constituant countries.

I forget if it was Iraq/ Afghan he refused to enter, but either, was unlawful; as we were ordered into Afghan against our mate Bin-Lid - for attacking our NATO friends, and if it were Iraq then unfortunately we also have this rope hanging around our heads where we have to look out for a greater world good - which was believed that entering Iraq for old Sadact, would bring.

Britain was obliged to enter both, and as such, so were it's soldiers - regardless of opinion on the matter. Not the governments/ armed forces he didn't think about that before joining - hence, he was sentenced for a bit of jailtime.

(Original post by djmarkmclachlan)
No, he was an idiot for signing up for service if he wasn't willing to fulfill his commitment.

If not being willing to fulfil that commitment is unacceptable then, using the position i have laid out, it follows that membership in the armed forces must therefore be immoral. as i said above, it is profoundly disrespectful to absolve other people of any moral responsibility for their actions. we must hold people morally responsible, and if it is possible that they can be placed in a position where they, or others, do not consider them morally responsible then they must prevent themselves from being placed in that position.

to ask "do most british people totally disrespect our soldiers?" is equivalent to asking "do most british people think someone can be absolved of moral responsibility, especially when they are engaged in matters of life and death?" i fear that, if your thoughts are representative of britain as a whole, then the answer is yes, we do show our soldiers a total lack of respect.

(Original post by PAPAdawg)
the british are for, the most part, a load of self loathing, disrespectful, envious, ''we can't do this'', ''you can't do that'' idiots.

We manage to destroy every part of the world we go on holiday to, unlike every other nation, possible eception to the australians and the french here.

I dunno why, maybe it's the weather? All i know is, i really dislike the pessimism of this country. I wish i was american....one of the few western nations with any remaining sense of national pride...which considering how many different cultures it contains is a really beautiful thing

I'm not sure Brits can be patriotic without minorities feeling ostracized. That's why people in Europe get uncomfortable with patriotism. In the US, patriotism is used to bring all minorities together. For some reason, in other countries it doesn't work that way. I'm not sure why, maybe because patriotism in most european countries is based on language and ethnicity. They confuse it with nationalism. To be patriotic, people are going to have to redefine what patriotism means first.

(Original post by PAPAdawg)
i hate those people who use being anti-war as an excuse to claim it acceptable to not show respect for injured soldiers.

look at the end of the video. that bloke has lost the entire left side of his brain. he is a young man who will live as a vegetable for the rest of his life. his family will have to look after him every second of it and their pain will be as much, if not more than he is himself experiencing.

Yes, but similarly that man chose his job. He CHOSE to be a soldier knowing that risk, and knowing that he may have to do that to other people. Not only that, but if he was anything like djmarkmclachlan he would've felt no guilt doing that to another person either.
I'm not saying it's not a terrible thing that soldiers get injured - it is - but they've brought it on themselves by their choice of career and willingness to harm others in that very same way.

(Original post by cpj1987)
Yes, but similarly that man chose his job. He CHOSE to be a soldier knowing that risk, and knowing that he may have to do that to other people. Not only that, but if he was anything like djmarkmclachlan he would've felt no guilt doing that to another person either.
I'm not saying it's not a terrible thing that soldiers get injured - it is - but they've brought it on themselves by their choice of career and willingness to harm others in that very same way.

You could also say that if no one volunteered for the military then we would have to use conscription - so on one level each person who joins the military is helping to keep you out of it.

edit - I bet you that more soldiers than not feel sadness, if not guilt, for their actions - just look at the rates of PTSD.

(Original post by cpj1987)
Yes, but similarly that man chose his job. He CHOSE to be a soldier knowing that risk, and knowing that he may have to do that to other people. Not only that, but if he was anything like djmarkmclachlan he would've felt no guilt doing that to another person either.
I'm not saying it's not a terrible thing that soldiers get injured - it is - but they've brought it on themselves by their choice of career and willingness to harm others in that very same way.

I know in my choice of career I could easily get a needlestick, contract HIV/hep c/insert bloodborne illness and die.

Or I could easily kill someone with the wrong choice of drug.

Or I could easily seriously injure myself using high speed drills... etc.

Should you not respect me/my choice? If I got injured would you just say, oh well, it was your choice, you knew it could happen?

(Original post by Magnanimity)
I know in my choice of career I could easily get a needlestick, contract HIV/hep c/insert bloodborne illness and die.

Or I could easily kill someone with the wrong choice of drug.

Or I could easily seriously injure myself using high speed drills... etc.

Should you not respect me/my choice? If I got injured would you just say, oh well, it was your choice, you knew it could happen?

Is your intention to kill someone with the wrong drug? Is it part of your job description?
My point isn't that he picked a career knowing he was at risk of injury, but that he picked a career knowing that he'd be doing that kind of thing to other people if the need arose. That if he was told to shoot, he would.
If someone above you said 'inject that person with enough chemicals that they're guaranteed to die', would you? If so, then yes, I'd also disrespect you. As it is, I'm sure you've not gone into the job PREPARED to kill if the need arises.

(Original post by cpj1987)
Is your intention to kill someone with the wrong drug? Is it part of your job description?
My point isn't that he picked a career knowing he was at risk of injury, but that he picked a career knowing that he'd be doing that kind of thing to other people if the need arose. That if he was told to shoot, he would.
If someone above you said 'inject that person with enough chemicals that they're guaranteed to die', would you? If so, then yes, I'd also disrespect you. As it is, I'm sure you've not gone into the job PREPARED to kill if the need arises.

Doctors are trained to take someone off life support if need be. Do you not respect vets because they put animals to sleep?

Also you have not replied to my first reply to your statement.

edit - also your statement does not cover WW2 veterans who you said that you do not respect.

(Original post by Kolya)
is the nuremberg defence really a satisfactory defence, though? if they have sufficient information to assess a particular act as likely being immoral, and they are ordered to do that act as part of their job, couldn't still committing the immoral act be fairly called immoral?

War is fought by the laws stated in the Geneva Convention. Almost every order given in Afghanistan and Iraq has followed the Geneva Convention - therefore those orders are not immoral. In contrast the defendants at Nuremberg killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians through mass executions (by gun and gas) and by false imprisonment that killed people through starvation and disease. Nothing the British army or the American army has done in Iraq or Afghanistan is even comparable to the scale and immorality of the holocaust - therefore talking about 'the nuremberg defense' is completely false and an insult to Holocaust victims and modern soldiers alike.

(Original post by dn013)
Doctors are trained to take someone off life support if need be. Do you not respect vets because they put animals to sleep?

Also you have not replied to my first reply to your statement.

edit - also your statement does not cover WW2 veterans who you said that you do not respect.

'If need be'. Yes. I don't believe there's ANY reason to kill a perfectly healthy human, who is fully conscious. I don't ALWAYS agree with vets putting animals to sleep, either - I'm sure some could recover or live decent lives. I'm not sure if people ever have their life support turned off when they're capable of continuing life - I'm no expert on that.
What was the WW2 comment again, sorry? I'm fairly sure I glossed over it because I'd already answered it in the previous thread, but I'm happy to answer it again if you really want.

Edit: Oh, if it was about them being forced into war - I'm still of the opinion that they should have refused to kill, personally.

(Original post by cpj1987)
Is your intention to kill someone with the wrong drug? Is it part of your job description?
My point isn't that he picked a career knowing he was at risk of injury, but that he picked a career knowing that he'd be doing that kind of thing to other people if the need arose. That if he was told to shoot, he would.
If someone above you said 'inject that person with enough chemicals that they're guaranteed to die', would you? If so, then yes, I'd also disrespect you. As it is, I'm sure you've not gone into the job PREPARED to kill if the need arises.

Again, your naive views of what it is the Armed Forces does shines through.

I know countless scores of personnel from all 3 services who have never held a weapon in anger, let alone fired it.

I'll consider it a success if, at the end of my 18yrs, I've never had call to use a rifle. I don't expect to, I don't want to. And if I did, it would only be to prevent another person with a gun killing me/my friends/my family.

While I do not disrespect your pacifism, I find it extraordinarily hard to understand. You'd sit back and allow someone to kill your friends and family, just because you couldn't bring yourself to fight back? It's just completely unfathomable - and distinctly unhuman.

(Original post by cpj1987)
'If need be'. Yes. I don't believe there's ANY reason to kill a perfectly healthy human, who is fully conscious. I don't ALWAYS agree with vets putting animals to sleep, either - I'm sure some could recover or live decent lives. I'm not sure if people ever have their life support turned off when they're capable of continuing life - I'm no expert on that.
What was the WW2 comment again, sorry? I'm fairly sure I glossed over it because I'd already answered it in the previous thread, but I'm happy to answer it again if you really want.

Edit: Oh, if it was about them being forced into war - I'm still of the opinion that they should have refused to kill, personally.

The WW2 comment was just that they were forced to fight and so it doesn't concur with your statement that you believe soldiers are immoral for volunteering to fight.

So when you say that they should not have fired their rifles are you saying that British and American soldiers should have just Hitler to kill innocent civilians in the countries he occupied?? There were about 10 million Jews in Europe at the start of the War, are you saying that they should have just allowed Hitler to kill the remaining 4 million, not least to mention the fact that Hitler would have killed millions more Gypsies, gays, etc. Surely in that case not fighting would have been more immoral than fighting.

There have been cases of people who come out of comas spanning at least a decade - in normal situations their life support would have been turned off.

edit - What do you think about all the soldiers who do charitable work, including disaster relief and food aid.